• Skip to main content
Daily Citizen
  • Subscribe
  • Categories
    • Culture
    • Life
    • Religious Freedom
    • Sexuality
  • Parenting Resources
    • LGBT Pride
    • Homosexuality
    • Sexuality/Marriage
    • Transgender
  • About
    • Contributors
    • Contact
  • Donate

Legislation

May 26 2026

Colorado Governor Must Veto These Attacks on Parents, Faith and Life

Three bills attacking parental rights, religious freedom and the sanctity of human life will become law unless Colorado Governor Jared Polis vetoes them. If signed into law, they would dramatically expand the government’s power over our families, our schools and the right to life. 

No matter where you stand politically, Coloradans who value parental rights, free speech, religious liberty and the sanctity of life should be paying attention.

Free Speech and Religious Liberty in Schools

HB26-1141, ironically titled “Discriminatory Practices in Public Schools,” would discriminate against students, teachers and staff for expressing sincerely held religious beliefs regarding sexuality, marriage or sex. 

The bill would expand Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws and create a grievance process for complainants to make allegations of discrimination in education settings. 

Supporters say the bill protects vulnerable students from being discriminated against. 

But critics like the Colorado Catholic Conference (CCC) contend this bill could chill speech and undermine the First Amendment by treating traditional beliefs as discrimination. 

Faith leaders are concerned students, teachers and staff could face discrimination complaints for simply verbally expressing their faith-based views on marriage, human sexuality and the sanctity of human life.

According to CCC, for instance, the law could prohibit student groups expressing faith aligned beliefs. 

“…Organizations such as Students for Life, Justice for All and Turning Point USA may be prohibited from speaking on abortion and human sexuality on college campuses if their positions oppose the state definition,” the organization wrote in Denver Catholic.

“Pro-life organizations also may not be allowed to promote life-affirming alternatives to abortion on college campuses.”

Parental Rights

HB26-1309, deceptively titled “Abuse in Cases of Separation,” would target caring parents for directing the upbringing of their children. 

The bill prohibits parents from exercising “coercive control” over their children. It defines “coercive control” as “a pattern of behavior that takes away the individual’s liberty or freedom and strips away the individual’s sense of self, including the individual’s bodily integrity and human rights.”

According to the bill text, coercive control of a child could include telling a child they cannot see certain friends, monitoring where they go, managing their bank account, limiting access to services, limiting screentime, prohibiting certain websites and even monitoring their text messages and emails. 

Failing to affirm a child’s sexual identity confusion would also fall under the law’s definition of coercive control.

The expansive scope of this bill would create unprecedented grounds for a court to strip away parental rights.

Sanctity of Human Life

HB26-1335 will require colleges and universities to carry and dispense abortion pills on campus through a student health center or an on-site pharmacy or submit a prescription for abortion pills to an off-site pharmacy. 

Though the bill includes an exception for religious colleges and universities, it is a clear attempt to normalize and institutionalize abortion in taxpayer-supported education systems. 

If it becomes law, the bill will violate preborn children’s right to life.

Abortion pills account for 63% of abortions committed in the United States each year.

A study released last May by the Ethics and Public Policy Center revealed that nearly 11% of women who take the abortion pill experienced serious side effects within 40 days, including sepsis, hemorrhaging, infection and emergency room visits. Those numbers are 22 times higher than the FDA’s current label.

Interestingly, new data shows 70% of Americans support increased oversight for the distribution and consumption of chemical abortion pills like mifepristone.

If it becomes law, Colorado will become one of only six states (including California, New York, Massachusetts, Delaware and Illinois) to require colleges and universities to provide access to abortion pills.

Call to Action

Coloradans still have a voice, but the window is closing.

If you believe in free speech, religious freedom, parental rights and the right to life, now is the time to speak up. 

Contact Governor Polis and urge him to veto HB26-1141, HB26-1309 and HB26-1335.

Tell him Colorado should protect families, not weaken parental rights; protect religious freedom, not chill speech; and protect life, not expand abortion.

The future of Colorado depends on citizens willing to stand for freedom before it’s too late.

Written by Nicole Hunt · Categorized: Government Updates · Tagged: CO Legislation, Legislation

Mar 11 2026

Why Can’t Congress Just Pass the SAVE Act?

March 11 marks one month since the House of Representatives passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act – legislation requiring, among other things, voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship and photo identification before voting in federal elections.

The House’s 218-213 vote was along party lines with just one Democrat voting in favor of the bill. The fate of the legislation now rests in the hands of the United States Senate, though its passage is far from certain and even unlikely.

Even though more than 80% of Americans support the bill, debate over its merits and necessity continues to rage red hot.

Writing on Truth Social this past week, President Trump made clear the bill’s passage remains his top legislative priority:

“It must be done immediately,” he wrote. “It supersedes everything else. MUST GO TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE. I, as President, will not sign other Bills until this is passed, AND NOT THE WATERED DOWN VERSION – GO FOR THE GOLD…”

Under current Senate rules, 60 votes are needed in the Senate for the bill to advance, a high threshold that has led to some calling for the upper chamber to change policy and eliminate what’s known as the filibuster rule.

The Senate filibuster is a procedural tactic that’s been available for lawmakers to extend debate indefinitely–a popular tool of the minority party. 

Pressured to bring the bill for a vote, Senate Majority Leader John Thune has stated bluntly, “We don’t have the votes, either to proceed [to] a talking filibuster nor to sustain one if we got on one. That’s just a function of math, and there isn’t anything I can do about that.”

On Wednesday, President Trump said Senator Thune “has got to be a leader!” He then added, “It’s the most popular bill I’ve ever seen put before Congress.”

Yet the Leader has insisted the bill will get a hearing on the Senate floor.

“We’re gonna have the fight on the floor,” he insisted. “We’re going to vote on this. I can guarantee the debate, I can guarantee the vote, I just can’t guarantee an outcome.”

Meanwhile, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has not only vowed to oppose the legislation but has also gone so far as to suggest that ill and racist motives are behind it. 

“The SAVE Act is Jim Crow 2.0,” he recently stated. “It would disenfranchise tens of millions of people. If Trump is saying he won’t sign any bills until the SAVE Act is passed, then so be it: there will be total gridlock in the Senate. Senate Democrats will not help pass the SAVE Act under any circumstances.”

To be clear, it’s already illegal for non-American citizens to vote in federal elections. Requiring proof of citizenship to vote is akin to requiring similar documentation to obtain a passport, apply for certain jobs, or file for federal benefits like Medicaid. 

Critics of the legislation claim that requiring voters to display such documentation along with a photo identification card will somehow discourage elderly, low income, or those who live in rural settings from coming out to the polls.

Why?

It’s not clear, especially since all those who may fit that description and who are already here legally would otherwise have or can acquire the necessary documentation.

The SAVE Act would also impose stricter regulations surrounding mail-in ballots, which have grown exponentially since the COVID-19 pandemic. These changes would include anyone requesting a ballot to show proof of citizenship, and a photo ID., and ban third-party ballot requests.

Those who support limiting mail-in balloting have expressed concern over its security, and have recently been quoting the late President Jimmy Carter who cochaired the 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform. At the time, President Carter stated,“Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud and are vulnerable to abuse in several ways.”  

In a tactic known as “legislative bundling,” lawmakers have also added a “Save Girls’ Sports” provision to the bill. It would require sports team to be defined by biological sex, prohibit males from playing on female teams, and make schools who violate rules risk losing federal funding.

Citizens are encouraged to contact their two U.S. senators to express support for this common-sense election reform.

Written by Paul Batura · Categorized: Culture · Tagged: Legislation

Feb 23 2026

State Roundup: Legislation Affecting Families in Indiana, Kentucky, New Hampshire and Washington

At least 46 state legislatures are in session right now, considering bills that affect life, marriage, families and religious freedom. While Congress’ actions often receive the most media attention, there are important measures being debated in each state. 

Legislative efforts often spread from one state to others, so it’s important for those concerned about culture and policy issues to pay attention to what’s happening around the country — as well as what legislators propose in their own state. 

Here’s a quick rundown of bills in four different states — Indiana, Kentucky, New Hampshire and Washington — dealing with key issues affecting families. 

Defining “Male” and “Female” in Indiana

Indiana Family Institute (IFI) is supporting Senate Bill 182, a measure which defines “male” and “female” for all state laws. The Institute, a Focus on the Family-allied Family Policy Council, explains why the bill is needed: 

For decades, no statutory definition of “male” or “female” was necessary, but modern gender-identity activism has made clarity essential. Defining sex according to objective biological markers protects the original meaning of laws like Title IX and prevents the legal chaos that would result from replacing sex with self-declared identity. Senate Bill 182 would codify a clear, biologically based definition of “sex” in state law and require that birth certificates reflect an individual’s sex at birth, without later alteration.

In addition, the bill prohibits public schools “from requiring a student to share sleeping quarters with a member of the opposite sex, unless the individual who is a member of the opposite sex is a family member.” It also “requires public schools … to designate a multiple occupancy restroom or changing area as follows: (1) For the exclusive use of the male sex. (2) For the exclusive use of the female sex.”

Check out Indiana Family Institute for more information about their 2026 Legislative Agenda to support issues related to marriage, family, life and religious freedom. 

Religious Freedom in Kentucky

Kentucky’s Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation to protect the conscience rights of doctors, nurses and other health care professionals, with a vote of 28-5. SB 72, the Healthcare Heroes Recruitment and Retention Act, is supported by The Family Foundation, a Focus on the Family-allied Family Policy Council. The organization explains why this bill is important: 

This important bill protects doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals from being forced to perform harmful or unethical procedures that violate their oath and conscience.

David Walls, executive director of the pro-life, pro-family organization, encouraged the Kentucky House to pass the bill, saying, “No Kentuckian, especially our frontline healthcare workers, should be forced to choose between their faith and their profession.” 

There’s more information about The Family Foundation here. 

New Hampshire’s Pro-Life Measure 

“Right-to-try” laws allow patients with chronic and debilitating illnesses to access treatments that are not yet fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration. New Hampshire has a right to try law, but HB 1292 would improve the law and protect life by criminalizing the use aborted babies’ organs as a source for stem cell lines.

New Hampshire’s Cornerstone, a Focus on the Family-allied Family Policy Council, explains the importance of this legislation: 

After last year’s advancements for the right to try experimental life-saving treatments, biotech companies are now taking interest in New Hampshire. Layon’s bill will help continue to attract innovation to the Granite State while ensuring we stop and criminalize use of abortion byproducts.

The organization explains that the legislation is modeled after a successful Florida law, adding: 

By prohibiting experimental treatment biotech companies from using stem cells of aborted children, companies can research life-saving treatments without supporting a life-taking industry. Stem cell treatments that do not use abortion will still be strongly protected. 

Learn more about New Hampshire’s Cornerstone and how to support family-friendly legislation here. 

Higher Taxes in Washington State

The Washington State Legislature is considering a bill titled “Establishing a tax on millionaires.” SB 6346 is opposed by the Family Policy Institute of Washington (FPIW), a pro-life, pro-family Focus on the Family ally. 

The organization explains in a Facebook post that the bill places  a “9.9% income tax on income over one million dollars, along with a cap on charitable deductions.” Pastor Brian Noble, CEO and President of FPIW, argues that the “‘Millionaires Tax’ violates biblical principles of justice, property rights, charity, and civil authority, and also conflicts with the state constitution and voter intent.”

FPIW states that SB 6346 will negatively affect all families, giving this warning: 

High earner income and wealth taxes are associated with capital flight and relocation of entrepreneurs, investors, and business owners to lower tax states, which can shrink the long-term tax base and private sector job growth rather than strengthen it. In the name of “tax the rich,” the real impact of this bill will be to hurt middle- and lower-income families, who need good jobs in order to prosper.

Citizens of the Evergreen State can find out more about the bill here and more about Family Policy Institute of Washington here. 

Related articles and resources: 

How to Get In Touch With Your State Policy Group

Activist Erin Friday on Protecting Kids and Fighting ‘Gender’ Ideology

‘The Babylon Bee’ Fights Hawaii Law Censoring Political Speech

Invoking God’s ‘Mercy,’ NY Gov. Kathy Hochul To Sign Assisted-Suicide Bill

Kansas Legislature Overrides Governor’s Veto, Protects Women’s Bathrooms

Meet Three Heroes Working to Protect Colorado Children

Sixteen Attorneys General Demand Answers on YouTube Censorship

UPDATED: Pornography Age Verification Laws — What They Are and Which States Have Them

Washington State Citizens Fight for Parents’ Rights, Girls Sports

Written by Jeff Johnston · Categorized: Government Updates · Tagged: culture, Legislation

Feb 13 2026

Colorado Committee Kills ‘Children Are Not for Sale Bill’

The Colorado House Judiciary Committee voted against the “Children Are Not for Sale Bill,” legislation that would have mandated a life sentence without the possibility of parole for anyone who traffics or purchases a minor for sexual activity.

It seems common sense that the most heinous crimes deserve the harshest penalties, but the bill was killed before it could go to the full House for a vote. 

Legislators voted along party lines, with seven Democrats voting against the measure and four Republicans voting for the bill. It is clear where people stand.

The bill, HB26-1082, would have elevated human “trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude” from a class 2 to a class 1 felony in Colorado, categorizing it with the most serious crimes like first-degree murder and first-degree kidnapping.

In more than four hours of intense testimony, dozens of parents and victims of trafficking spoke in favor of the Children Are Not for Sale Bill. 

Only five people testified against it, including three defense attorneys and a representative of the ACLU. 

In his opening remarks, committee Chair Javier Mabrey, D-Denver and Jefferson Counties, acknowledged that “emotions run high” when discussing this horrific topic. He reminded the representatives and those who testified:

It’s important to be clear that every person in this room cares about the safety of children.… These crimes are among the most serious and devastating offenses imaginable.

Mabrey then went on to add: 

And reasonable people can differ on the policy here. You can differ on what the punishment should be, how our sentencing structure should operate and what approach best protects children and strengthens public safety.

And there were, indeed, serious policy differences between those who supported the Children Are Not for Sale Bill and those who opposed the measure. 

Representative Scott Bottoms, R-El Paso County, who also serves as a pastor in Colorado Springs, introduced the bill, saying: 

I think one of the most egregious things that can happen to a society is the rape of children, the trafficking of children, the abuse of children. … I strongly believe that children are the most innocent among us, and I’m not okay with anybody touching them or doing anything to them inappropriately. 

He described his more than 30 years of helping victims of sexual abuse and trafficking, both as a pastor and as a board member of a ministry to survivors. Bottoms explained this exploitation has life-long effects on children, so perpetrators deserve a life sentence. 

He also argued, “Having been trafficked isn’t an excuse for repeating the cycle.” 

Dr. Karen Pennington, a professor of nursing and Colorado director of Concerned Women for America, testified in favor of the legislation:

The issue of child sex trafficking and prostitution has seen explosive growth in our country, from $500 million a year to $150 billion per year. Tennessee Board of Investigation cites a child is sold or bought for sex every two minutes every day in this country. 

Dr. Pennington added: 

Without this bill, a prostituted child is left with a mandatory life sentence of multiple traumas, PTSD, mental and behavioral difficulties.  And the perpetrator gets probation, in most cases, and is free to continue to prey on our children.

Erin Lee, founder and director of Protect Kids Colorado, also spoke in favor of the bill, which is virtually identical to a citizen-initiated ballot measure the organization is hoping to place on the November ballot. 

She explained that Colorado ranks number 10 in the nation for human trafficking reports, adding:

We need to deter people from harming children. If they know there are strict penalties, and they will be held accountable, they are less likely to victimize a child to begin with. 

The first to oppose the bill was Ariane Frosh, an attorney who works as policy counsel at ACLU Colorado. With a background in “gender and reproductive justice,” she said the ACLU opposes the measure because judges “are best suited to decide a just sentence” and there was no allowance for “mitigating and individualized circumstances.”

Frosh added that the bill “undermines goals of rehabilitation and personal transformation while in jail and increases financial burdens on these institutions.” She suggested the state invest in prevention strategies. 

Three defense attorneys opposed the bill. James Karbach, from the Colorado Public Defender’s Office, said the bill was too broad and that it could “ensnare people who themselves have been trafficked.” He also argued: 

If a person hires an 18-year-old prostitute or a person engaged in sex work and is caught, they would face very, very limited penalties. If they believed that person to be 18 and they turned out to be 17, then they would face life without parole under this bill. … This policy solution won’t achieve effective goals, is costly, and doesn’t fit well within our [penalty] scheme.

Laurie Rose Kepros, the director of sexual litigation for the Colorado Office of the State Public Defender, said HB26-1082 could be used against survivors of trafficking, or even against those trying to help trafficking victims with food or shelter. 

She stated the proposed law could also be used to prosecute someone for giving somebody a ride or for helping someone set up a website. During questioning, Kepros explained that transporting a victim could mean: 

An 18 year old who is trying to talk a 17-year-old peer out of engaging in sex work, and decides to give her a ride anyway, so that she will not hitchhike and face even more risk, is subject to prosecution under transportation provisions of this statute. 

Rep. Scott Slaugh, R- Larimer and Weld Counties, explained his vote in favor of HB26-1082: 

We talked about the proportionality of life without parole and a life sentence in prison, versus the life sentence that an innocent individual, an innocent child would face if they were trafficked, I think the proportionality there is pretty significant to look at.  An individual who does this, knowingly, willingly, absolutely deserves severe punishment, and they should fear for their life, their life in prison for doing these kinds of things. No child should fear for their life, and that is the sentence that [a trafficked] child is given.

Those who voted against the bill explained that child sex trafficking is a horrible crime that already receives harsh, cumulative sentences in Colorado. But then gave their reasons for opposing the proposed legislation. Rep. Chad Clifford, D-Arapahoe County, voted against the bill, saying: 

I voted for a bill last year that had increased child sexual assault penalties … And now, for the last two years, I have been engaged with people working on, talking to, people related to this issue long enough to know that something that sounds simple in law is not always so simple. …

He added, “I’m on record multiple times saying that I do believe that offenders of child sexual assault should spend their life in prison.” Clifford then stated that the bill was “like a sledgehammer” aimed at “one particular statute” that would not solve the trafficking of minors in Colorado. He concluded, “We know that this [bill] is not the way.” 

Come November, Coloradans may have the opportunity to vote on a resolution that mandates a life sentence without parole for anyone who traffics a minor, but, at this point, increased penalties will not come from the Legislature. 

Related articles and resources: 

Counseling Consultation & Referrals

Bongino Announces FBI Apprehended 449 Child Predators, Rescued 224 Kids in 3 Months

How to Prevent Sexual Exploitation of Your Child

How to Fight Human Trafficking

Human Trafficking: What You Need to Know

Meet Three Heroes Working to Protect Colorado Children

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC)

NCMEC’s 24/7 call center number: 1-800-THE-LOST (843-5678)

Protect Kids Colorado

Protecting Your Child From Sexual Abuse

Reclaiming Hope: Resources and Mentoring for Sex Trafficking Survivors

Sign These Three Ballot Petitions to Protect Kids and Parental Rights in Colorado

‘Still Hope’ Movie Tells Story of Hope and Healing After Horrors of Sex Trafficking

Understanding the Scope of Human Trafficking

Written by Jeff Johnston · Categorized: Culture · Tagged: Legislation

Feb 10 2026

Is it ‘Voter Suppression’ to Require Proof of Citizenship to Vote?

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE America Act) is proposed federal legislation that would require individuals to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote and to show photo identification when voting in federal elections. 

Proponents state that the Act is necessary to prevent voter fraud and keep non-citizens from voting in federal elections. They explain that the millions of illegal aliens currently living in the U.S. necessitate strengthening election integrity. 

Opponents, on the other hand, claim “instances of noncitizen voting are rare.” They also contend that the Act amounts to “voter suppression” that would “block millions of Americans from voting.”

The Brennan Center for Justice, for example, states its opposition to the Act: 

In every form, the SAVE Act would require American citizens to show documents like a passport or birth certificate to register to vote. Our research shows that more than 21 million Americans lack ready access to those documents.

The SAVE America ACT would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), known as the “motor voter law,” which mandates that states offer voter registration for federal elections at state motor vehicle agencies. NVRA also requires states to offer voter registration by mail-in applications. 

The NVRA also requires applicants to sign a statement, under penalty of perjury, that they meet the requirements to vote. But it does not require them to present any proof of citizenship. 

Representative Chip Roy, R-TX, introduced the first version of the SAVE Act in 2024, where it passed in the House but failed in the Senate. Rep. Roy reintroduced the bill in 2025, with the House voting 220 to 208 to pass the measure. Again, the bill died in the Senate. 

Roy introduced a slightly different version of the bill, HR 7296, renamed the SAVE America Act, on January 30, 2026. The newer version, also dubbed SAVE 2.0, added the requirement for voters to present a photo ID to vote in federal elections and mandates that states purge non-citizens from voter rolls. 

The House is scheduled to vote this week on the newer version, and members who support the measure are putting pressure on the Senate to also bring the bill to a vote

Massive Bipartisan Citizen Approval

Voter ID laws have widespread approval. A recent survey from Pew Research Center demonstrated that Americans overwhelmingly support, by a margin of 83-16%, “requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification to vote.” Voters from every ethnic background approve of these laws. 

Pew reported: 

Support for photo ID requirements also remains widespread in both parties. More than nine-in-ten Republicans (95%) and about seven-in-ten Democrats (71%) favor requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification to vote.

House Speaker Mike Johnson stated his support for the SAVE America Act, stating, “The American people deserve free, fair, and secure elections. That starts with proving your identity when you vote.” 

The American People deserve free, fair, and secure elections.

That starts with proving your identity when you vote. A HUGE MAJORITY of Americans support a simple photo identification requirement and allowing ONLY American citizens to participate in American elections. That’s why… pic.twitter.com/t8ViRFB6ue

— Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) February 6, 2026

On CNN, news anchor Dana Bash questioned House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries about popular support for voter ID laws. He responded, “We know that states are the ones who are empowered to conduct elections, and every state should be allowed to decide the best way to proceed, to ensure that there’s a free and fair election.” 

He went on to accuse Republicans of trying to engage in “voter suppression.” 

Bash: 71% of Democrats support requiring an ID to vote. Why are they wrong?

Jeffries: Republicans are trying to engage in clear and blatant voter suppression.

Bash: But Democrats won in Virginia, and had to show ID. So why not support it?

Jeffries: Trump is trying to steal… pic.twitter.com/k9l7mGdhE6

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) February 8, 2026

Hans Von Spakovsky, an attorney who has served on the Federal Election Commission, writes: 

Voters want both access and security. And contrary to the claims of critics, you can provide both. Making sure that every eligible citizen is able to vote does not prevent you from implementing measures intended to safeguard that vote.

To this end, Von Spakovsky recommends that states certify the accuracy of voter registration lists, verify citizenship of voters, require voter ID, and limit absentee ballots. He also suggests banning vote harvesting by third parties should be banned and giving election observers complete access to the entire voting and ballot counting process. 

According to Ballotpedia, 49 states “require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections.” North Dakota does not have a statewide voter registration system but does require voter identification to vote. 

However, the online resource adds, “Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring proof of citizenship at the time of voter registration.” Of these, Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana have not implemented those systems, and a court decision invalidated Kansas’ law. 

In addition, “Ohio requires proof of citizenship only when registering to vote at a Bureau of Motor Vehicles facility … and Tennessee, requires proof of citizenship for some registrants if there are questions about a person’s citizenship status.” 

Ballotpedia also explains, “As of October 2025, 36 states required voters to present identification in order to vote at the polls on Election Day, but many states provide for exceptions to these rules.” 

States like California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Vermont require no ID to vote.  

Related articles and resources: 

Are Elections Secure? 10 Examples of Election Issues Around the Country

Can the US Postal System Be Trusted with Our Ballots?

Election Security Is on the Ballot in November and December

Georgia’s Election Integrity Act – Voter Suppression or Election Integrity?

The Heritage Foundation: Election Integrity and the American Republic

Voter Fraud: The Election Process, What Can Go Wrong, and Previous Contested Elections and Incidents Why (and How) Christians Should Vote

Photo from Shutterstock.

Written by Jeff Johnston · Categorized: Government Updates · Tagged: Legislation

  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Go to Next Page »

Privacy Policy and Terms of Use | Privacy Policy and Terms of Use | © 2026 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.

  • Cookie Policy